Wahl-to-Wahl coverage

Eugene Wahl asked us to post a statement related to some incorrect claims circulating in the blogosphere:

The Daily Caller blog yesterday contained an inaccurate story regarding a correspondence that was part of the emails hacked from East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009.

For the record, while I received the email from CRU as forwarded by Dr. Mann, the forwarded message came without any additional comment from Dr. Mann; there was no request from him to delete emails. At the time of the email in May 2008, I was employed by Alfred University, New York. I became a NOAA employee in August 2008.

The emails I deleted while a university employee are the correspondence I had with Dr. Briffa of CRU regarding the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, all of which have been in the public domain since the CRU hack in November 2009. This correspondence has been extensively examined and no misconduct found. As a NOAA employee, I follow agency record retention policies and associated guidance from information technology staff.

Dr. Eugene R. Wahl

March 9, 2011

Further questions can be addressed to Katy.G.Human -at- noaa.gov

Our comments

These claims are simply the latest attempt to try and manufacture scandals and smear scientists, particularly Mike Mann, based on the UEA emails. The story appears likely to have come from Senator Inhofe’s office who presumably had access to the transcripts taken by the NOAA Office of the Inspector General (whose investigation found no evidence of any wrongdoing by NOAA employees). The story was planted with Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, and Chris Horner, and then linked to by Inhofe’s office to provide a little plausible denialability – a rather blatant media spin operation.

But the facts of the case do not support the narrative they are pushing at all. While Jones’ original email was certainly ill-advised (as we stated immediately it came to light in Nov. 2009). Eugene Wahl was not subject to FOIA at the time (since he was not a federal employee) and was not subject to UK FOI anyway since he was working for a US-based university. Nor was he aware of any ongoing FOI actions in any case. In the original emails released, Mann stated that he would notify Wahl of Jones’ email, and his only involvement was to forward the Jones email to Wahl which Wahl’s account confirms.

So what is the actual issue at the heart of this? A single line in the IPCC AR4 report (p466) which correctly stated that “Wahl and Ammann (2006) also show that the impact [of the McIntyre and McKitirck critique] on the amplitude of the final reconstruction [by MBH98] was small (~0.05C)”. This was (and remains) true. During the drafting Keith Briffa corresponded with Eugene Wahl and others to ensure that the final text was accurate (which it was). Claims from McIntyre that this was not allowed under IPCC rules are just bogus – IPCC authors can consult with anyone they like at any time. However, this single line, whose inclusion made no effective difference to the IPCC presentation, nonetheless has driven continuing harassment of everyone involved for no good purpose whatsoever. Wahl and Ammann did show that MM05 made no substantial difference to the MBH reconstruction, whether it got said in the IPCC report or not.

That this inconvenient fact has driven hundreds of blog posts, dozens of fevered accusations, a basket load of FOI requests, and stoked multiple fires of manufactured outrage is far more a testimony to personal obsession, rather than to its intrinsic importance. The science of paleo-reconstructions has moved well beyond this issue, as has the interest of the general public in such minutiae. We can however expect the usual suspects to continue banging this drum, long after everyone else has gone home.

119 comments on this post.

John:

March 9th, 2011 at 4:09 PM

–> “But the facts of the case do not support the narrative they are pushing at all. While Jones’ original email was certainly ill-advised (as we stated immediately it came to light in Nov. 2009). Eugene Wahl was not subject to FOIA at the time (since he was not a federal employee) and was not subject to UK FOI anyway since he was working for a US-based university. Nor was he aware of any ongoing FOI actions in any case. In the original emails released, Mann stated that he would notify Wahl of Jones’ email, and his only involvement was to forward the Jones email to Wahl which Wahl’s account confirms.”

I totally understand. As publicly funded scientists there should be no reason to avoid the appearance of hiding anything by skirting the limits of FOI laws. I mean, even though public money goes into it, ultimately it’s your data, we should just trust you.

[Response: As an example of misconstruing almost every available fact, this comment rates high. Given that all of the relevant data and code related to this have been available for years, and yet the mono-maniacal desire to find something (anything!) wrong continues unabated, it is clear to any objective party that this continued harassment has nothing to do with science or climate or data or replication, but everything to do with partisan personal attacks. – gavin]

Jeffrey Davis:

March 9th, 2011 at 4:35 PM

It’s early yet: not even 10 years. But it has all the ear-marks of wanting to become like the Alger Hiss story. A finite scope. Prickly egos. And like the Hiss case it involves (there’s a joke coming) trendless Red noise.

Jimmy Haigh:

March 9th, 2011 at 4:43 PM

There’s a lot of smoke here boys. I hope there’s no CO2 in it…

Michael K:

March 9th, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Trolls are at war with facts. Facts are trumped by opinions. Reality takes second place to ideology.

Rocco:

March 9th, 2011 at 4:54 PM

I think you guys should realize by now that this nonsense will not stop until someone gets sued.

March 9th, 2011 at 5:08 PM

I think people need to understand that FOI legislation isn’t international law, or at least AFAIK. True, UK FOI law allows foreign requests, that isn’t because it has to, Americans are just lucky it does.
In 10 years time, ‘shields could be up’ and all nations might limit FOI requests that are across borders.
There is also a certain irony in that many that want openness regarding global climate data are the same people that don’t want global legislation.

March 9th, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Does anyone reading this think we’d be seeing any of this — the apparent involvement of Inhofe’s office, multiple investigations (which all came up negative), the assistance of denier blogs to spread the word — if Dr. Mann had published some trivial finding that no one cared about? Of course not.

You can demonstrate why Dr. Mann is being attacked simply by showing a lay person with no particular involvement in the climate issue(s) the hockey stick graph. I’ve done this, and it’s an incredibly effective communication tool, so the simply must neutralize it. If that requires the attempted character assassination of Dr. Mann, no one should be surprised that the deniers would stoop to such levels. Once you’ve sent scientists death threats, a disgusting act like this probably seems trivial.

MapleLeaf:

March 9th, 2011 at 5:23 PM

So McIntyre is in bed with Inhofe. Who would have thought….their actions also speak loudly to their utter desperation and vacuity of their ‘arguments’….0.05 K. I wish the above figure could be shown on billboards.

And the timing of this ‘leak” is very curious….one day before the assault on the EPA is tabled. Got to give those GOP senators something to wave in their hands while foaming at the mouth about those ‘lying climate scientists’.

Gavin et al., you have been playing nice for far, far too long now. I will not presume to say what you should do, but I suspect you know what a great deal of people are hoping what you will do.

Stay strong. The truth will win out, eventually.

Isotopious:

March 9th, 2011 at 5:59 PM

The first point I would make is that there is a lot of empty space in the graph above (putting the the key/ legend in the empty space only brings the idle area to attention).

Second, the interesting scientific part of the graph, where all the validation and mixing occurs is very hard to look at. The resolution of the data around this point of calibration resembles 8 bit nintento graphics. So to make it more scientific we need to actually see what you have done.

Thirdly, some perspective is need. I’m sure there are plenty of other proxies from ice and sendiments which need to be compared with the above proxies. Where are the sea/ ocean cores or other potential proxies from the same region where the tree rings were sampled.

March 9th, 2011 at 6:08 PM

The truth will win out, eventually.

Michael:

March 9th, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Dear Gavin

Do you believe that any further action, individual sanctions or policy changes should be implemented as a result of the circumstances surrounding asking for email to be deleted and that message being forwarded to other parties?

Regards

Michael

[Response: What policies are based on a single line in the middle of the IPCC report and/or any issue related to it? The idea is absurd (sorry to be harsh, but really!). – gavin]

MapleLeaf:

March 9th, 2011 at 7:46 PM

Paul @10,

Alas too many GtC. Of course I realise that is the point/goal of FUD.

March 9th, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Gavin et al., you have been playing nice for far, far too long now.

I might agree with the “et al.” part — but not with the “Gavin” part.

Gavin, you have maintained a level of class, cool-headedness, and honor, that commands respect. Our side surely needs some bulldogs — sometimes we have to fight fire with fire — but we also need lions who neither want nor need to roll with the jackals. You are an inspiration.

“the lion never counts the herd that are about him, nor weighs how many flocks he has to scatter.”

Michael:

March 9th, 2011 at 8:36 PM

Dear Gavin

To clarify my previous question I meant to refer to changes in policy as to maintaining or enhancing the integrity of communications associated with the IPCC process.

Kind Regards

Michael

[Response: IPCC authors are volunteers who spend a considerable amount of time not doing research in order to write the reports. In so doing, they do not cede their rights to have private conversations with anyone about anything. The review stages of the IPCC reports are open to all, and all formal review comments need to be responded to formally and that is rightly public. If the IPCC reports were written under US government auspices, all official communications made in the drafting of the reports would be ‘pre-decisional deliberations’ which are exempt from release under FOIA. As far as I know that has not been tested in court for an international report, but that could happen, though the situation in other countries is different again. I would therefore advise any IPCC AR5 author subject to state or national FOIA laws to assume that communications might be FOIA-able and act accordingly. That will of course slow down progress on the report and might well lead to a lack of frankness on the part of any authors, though it might lead to a greater use of skype. A clear statement from DoJ in the US on what the rules are before the process really starts in earnest would be very useful. It is especially when rules are applied retroactively that problems occur. – gavin]

MapleLeaf:

March 9th, 2011 at 8:42 PM

Tamino @16,

Just to avoid any confusion, I would like to add that I fully agree with your comments about Gavin, and would add Mike Mann to that list too– many of us lesser mortals would have had mental breakdowns a long time ago if subjected to the same repeated harassment and slander.

I guess the point of my post was to express frustration that 3M (McIntyre, McKitrick and Morano, and others) can continue to lie, slander and misinform at will, without consequence. Who is going to be the poor sod to volunteer to be the “bulldog” in the USA. In Canada it has been Weaver, and trust me when I say that doing so has not been easy for him. But him doing so has made a difference to how some of the formerly irresponsible media now behave.

But surely climate scientists and the media and honorable politicians cannot let this madness and harassment continue going unchallenged? So again I ask, who is going to step up to the plate in the USA and take some legal action? 3M and their cohorts apparently do not understand reason. And what happened to “reconciliation” McIntyre? Oh right, yet another “contrarian” farce.

Isotopious:

March 9th, 2011 at 8:59 PM

13

What truth? You seem to be implying that one can be selective in the presentation of the data. Indeed, one can be selective. Generally in science, though, it’s best to try and prove yourself wrong, rather than to prove yourself right.

The large blank space is very important, because It’s saying:

“this is the best we can do”.

[edit]

[Response: Every presentation is selective – how can it not be? Useful presentations are those that are fair to the underlying data and make whatever point you want to make clearly. This has very little to do per se with testing hypotheses. – gavin]

Bibasir:

March 9th, 2011 at 9:57 PM

RE Isotopious 9 & 22

“The first point I would make is that there is a lot of empty space in the graph above (putting the the key/ legend in the empty space only brings the idle area to attention).
The large blank space is very important, because It’s saying:

“this is the best we can do”.

I don’t get the concern with the large blank space. It is there because the graph goes sharply up on the right. It’s a hockey stick!

jakerman:

March 9th, 2011 at 10:00 PM

Gavin, you are a great scientist, but you need to get some PR help. The deniers are framing this story, and RC is playing into their framing by leading with Wahl’s response to allegations.

The central point is not that Wahl denies something that he’s accused of doing. That is their narrative.

The central point is the political witch hunt involing a leak of senate documents to bloggers and the usual suspects doing their usual fabrications.

I suggest you move Wahl’s comment down to a factual footnote rather thant the framing lead of this post.

jakerman:

March 9th, 2011 at 10:09 PM

Note I don’t expect scientist to be great at PR. But pro-science needs to adapt or needs help to deal with a post-normal attack on science. As Eli Rabbet observes, its not correct to blame scienits for for poor communication:

“there has been a concerted effort to blame the science side for not doing what it is not talented to do, [when the issue is] about the PR muscle on the anti-science side.”

Game it, people … these stupid taxapayer funded investigations into non-existent fraud being a good starting point.

March 10th, 2011 at 12:53 AM

dhog, do you recollect someone not long ago suggesting it might be unwise to submit false information to Congress?

EFS_Junior:

March 10th, 2011 at 1:17 AM

Wahl and Ammann (2006) was published by Science on 28 April 2006.

Wahl and Ammann (2007) was accepted on 1 March 2006.

Both of these dates meet the last guidance on publication deadlines from the IPCC AR4 WG1, dated 1 July 2006;

Reviewers are invited to submit copies of additional papers that are either in-press or published in 2006, along with the chapter and section number to which this material could pertain, via email to ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov, not later than July 24, 2006. In the case of in-press papers a copy of the final acceptance letter from the journal is requested for our records. All submissions must be received by the TSU not later than July 24, 2006 and incomplete submissions can not be accepted.

I could also post numerous links to British FOI and EIR requests, trying unsuccessfully (nee rejected), to obtain additional emails which the UEA has consistently considered;

Release of some of the information likely to adversely effect the interests of the person providing the information

The public interest in withholding this information outweighs that of releasing it due to the need to protect the openness and confidentiality of academic intercourse

What is being asked for here is informal, personal correspondence passing between academics engaged in IPCC work. It is clear that the IPCC envisages that there must be a ‘space’ in which employees of public authorities can work, and exchange views that are excepted from public disclosure in order to provide an arena for views and discussions that would not be appropriate in a public venue but are essential to academic work, collegiality, the progress of science. To disclose the requested information would be to close off this space, reducing the opportunity for academics to exchange such views and discussions, and altering substantially the content of such exchanges.

By this criteria, I seriously doubt that the majority of CRU emails would have ever seen the light of day by legal means, given the current British FOI/EIR laws.

In closing, see the following link, where one individual has posted numerous British FOI requests and replies, the latest of which is dated 8 March 2011;

I have reviewed Mr. Palmer’s application of the public interest test and I do not believe that our position has changed in this respect and uphold Mr. Palmer’s original decision.

We would now consider this to be our final position on the internal review of this matter, and would advise that if you are dissatisfied with this response, you should now exercise your right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at;

Please quote our reference given at the head of this letter in all correspondence

6) Repeat from step 2. Start with a political leak from Senate documents and use this to fabricate false allegations such as:
“Wahl says Mann did indeed ask Wahl to destroy records”

John Mashey:

March 10th, 2011 at 1:59 AM

I’ll repeat what I’ve told a few climate scientists in depressed modds:

1) You have to keep doing the science we need. No one else can.

2) Many of you have to get enough PR training not to make bad mistakes.

3) Some of you will have to spend part of your time in outreach.

4) A few of you, with the talent and practice, will have to spend a lot of time doing it. (Thinking of our departed SHS.)

And meanwhile, it’s up to some of the *rest* of us to get these people off your backs.

====
Look: the climate anti-science machine wants scientists to waste their time so they do less science. It’s asymmetric warfare, and any researcher could spend 100% of their time doing this, not a good idea.

Climate scientists as a group are as good as others at communicating, the difference is (like tobacco researchers and a few others), they face a well-funded machine that is happy to lie and libel. Most science branches don’t have to deal with that, and it’s alien to them. {I’ve heard lots of climate scientists speak, and seen a lot of fine books.] But doubt and confusion are always easier than clarity.

I hope anyone telling climate scientists how to do better is spending much more time actually doing something to help get people off their backs.

Michael K:

March 10th, 2011 at 2:16 AM

It’s important to realize that “climate change” has now become an “identity issue” for many, many, people, especially in the United States, where there has been a dramatic shift in public opinion; a carefully munufactured shift, but a shift none-the-less.

This change is… unfortunate, to say the least, because perceived threats to one’s identity create an emotional response that negates rationality, and logic, and facts.

Climate change is a fundamental and structural challenge to our way of life in the West and increasingly in other parts of the world that are desparate to follow the western model of economic development. Obviously, anything, any idea, that challenges our way of life and economic system so profoundly; inequality, patterns of consumption, the distribution of wealth… such a challenge isn’t going to be welcomed with open arms.

Scientists and the various green movements/organizations are wrong not to face up to the political implications of climate change, especially when the opposition is so acutely aware of them. In society it’s never enough to be “right”, that’s fine in a lab environment, but out in the real world it’s Power that matters.

One Anonymous Bloke:

March 10th, 2011 at 2:32 AM

Hank Roberts #28 I recall it, hence my hackles rising at some remarks made at the EPA hearing. I’m a bit shaky on US law. What are the ramifications? Are elected officials immune?

Jack Savage:

March 10th, 2011 at 4:52 AM

It is a pity Dr Wahl does not go on to say which claims in the article are incorrect.

As far as I can see, having read the article, it does not contradict in any way the matters he sets out ‘for the record’
Could we be told exactly which claims in the Daily Caller article he considers are incorrect? Is it 10%, 50% or all of it?

xavier:

March 10th, 2011 at 5:36 AM

This is a post by JimR on a story at sciencemag.org about this issue:

On May 27, 2008 Phil Jones was copied on an E-mail from Tim Osborn to Caspar Ammann as follows:

“Our university has received a request, under the UK Freedom of Information law, from someone called David Holland for emails or other documents that you may have sent to us that discuss any matters related to the IPCC assessment process.
We are not sure what our university’s response will be, nor have we even checked whether you sent us emails that relate to the IPCC assessment or that we retained any that you may have sent. However, it would be useful to know your opinion on this matter. In particular, we would like to know whether you consider any emails that you sent to us as confidential.

Sorry to bother you with this,
Tim (cc Keith & Phil)”

Two days later, on May 29, 2008 Jones sent the E-mail to Mann with the title “IPCC & FOI” that said:

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

The FOI not only predates the request to delete E-mails, it is also clear Jones was aware of the active FOI for the information he was requesting be deleted.

[Response: We’ve said all along that Jones’ email was ill-advised. But no-one outside UEA is responsible for their response to a UK FOI request nor has any obligations. – gavin]

John McManus:

March 10th, 2011 at 6:04 AM

Isototpious:
Let me try again to make this clear.
The curve is bounded by a page large enough to capture the relevent data; time and temperature.

So, again, white is page , curves are data.

I hope this helps.

John McManus:

March 10th, 2011 at 6:46 AM

Isotopious:
On reflection , you have a point.

Removing most of the white area gives us a hockey stick with a pretty stripe down the middle.

Your methodology does indeed highlight the rising temperatures.

DDaze:

March 10th, 2011 at 7:16 AM

There are two sides to this story.

The first is that deletion of emails by Wahl is of absolutely no consequence since he was not bound by FOI legislation and the substance of the deleted material was minor.

The second is in relation to the allegation put to Mann: “Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?”

Clearly, indirectly he did. The allegation doesn’t make any reference to FOI either.

[Response: Ah yes, that’s it! And I was also ‘indirectly’ involved (or as one of our alert readers put it ‘hip deep in the CRU emails!!’) since in 1999 I received one or two emails that were also sent to Phil Jones (or, horror, may have been sent to Mike Mann too!), giving me directions to a building on campus somewhere. Quick, call in the police. Suggestion: go read George Orwell’s book.–eric]

Ray Ladbury:

March 10th, 2011 at 7:59 AM

Isotopious,
The only way to have less “white space” in the graph would be to present the Y axis on a log scale–and that would obscure the physics, which I suppose would be fine with you.

andrew adams:

March 10th, 2011 at 9:08 AM

MapleLeaf @ 18

I guess the point of my post was to express frustration that 3M (McIntyre, McKitrick and Morano, and others) can continue to lie, slander and misinform at will, without consequence.

4M surely… don’t forget Mosher.

Dan H.:

March 10th, 2011 at 9:45 AM

SecularAnimist:

March 10th, 2011 at 11:00 AM

Michael K wrote: “It’s important to realize that ‘climate change’ has now become an ‘identity issue’ for many, many, people …”

Which is one of the definitive characteristics of a cult.

Which is exactly what global warming denial is.

dhogaza:

March 10th, 2011 at 11:25 AM

John Mashey:

Look: the climate anti-science machine wants scientists to waste their time so they do less science. It’s asymmetric warfare, and any researcher could spend 100% of their time doing this, not a good idea.

And, of course, they want to discourage young scholars from entering the field, by putting them on notice that any successful research that runs counter to their ideological beliefs will lead to personal attacks on their character and livelihood.

March 10th, 2011 at 12:27 PM

> 28, 33 above

Yes, in fact, they’re immunized — they can say anything no matter how outrageous without any liability while on the job. However, giving them false information is against the law. Note that this allows them to gather whatever information people can provide, but ignore what they don’t like and say whatever they want, regardless of the facts. There are nuances* to this.
____________________http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/separationofpowers.htm

“… To ensure free discussion of controversial issues in Congress, the framers immunized members of Congress from liability for statements made in House or Senate debate: for their “speech or debate” they “shall not be questioned in any other place.”

… Proxmire’s awarding of his “Golden Fleece” award to Dr. Ronald Hutchinson led to a defamation suit– and a Supreme Court decision interpreting the Speech and Debate Clause.

In 1979, in Hutchinson v Proxmire, the [Supreme] Court considered whether the immunity for Senate and House debate extended beyond the floor to cover press releases and statements made to the media. The Court concluded that the Speech and Debate Clause protected only official congressional business, not statements for public consumption ….”
___________________
* I am not a lawyer; your mileage may vary; contents may have settled during shipping; trans fat less than 0.5 gram/serving is “0%” on label; one chip or one slice is one serving; public consumption of product at your own risk.

March 10th, 2011 at 12:32 PM

> rankexploits

Be wary of links by Dan H., he sounds reasonable if you’re a new reader but he’s a blog science fan. You’ll get better information from Google Scholar than from some of the comments in threads at RC — be careful and check.

One Anonymous Bloke:

March 10th, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Hank Roberts #44 “Giving them false information is against the law”. I’ll leave it to more knowledgeable folk to figure out whether anyone broke the law, but it sure seemed that way to me.

David:

March 10th, 2011 at 12:47 PM

29 EFS_Junior

The guidance you quoted from began

“We are very grateful to the many reviewers of the second draft of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report for suggestions received on issues of balance and citation of additional scientific literature.”

There were over 11,000 comments, all with suggestions in them. I don’t know how many “many” is in 11,000 but can you give me the references to, say, 10 or 5 or even 1 that asked for the retrospectively revised deadlines?

This is what the “delete any emails” emails is all about.

[Response: Only in your mind I’m afraid. IPCC can adjust its guidelines whenever it likes, for whatever reason it likes. This idea that an initial cut-off date is something sacrosanct is nonsense. The cut-offs are there to prevent continually new stuff being added all the time – you want them to be as close as possible to the deadline for the report while still allowing time for an assessment. The relevant result from W&A had been clear for a year and the line in the report was (and remains) correct. But even if that paper hadn’t ended up making the cut, what conceivable difference would it have made to anything? You are imagining a conspiracy where none exists and where none is needed and where none was even desired. You will never be satisfied with any of the responses you get from any FOI/EIR request because what you think happened never did. Don’t take this the wrong way, but, really, find something more interesting to do with your time. – gavin]

toto:

March 10th, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Hank: the particular post linked to by Dan H. was actually written by Zeke Hausfather, who generally provides solid analyses. This post was one of them, IMHO.

March 10th, 2011 at 12:55 PM

> I’ll leave it to more knowledgeable folk to figure
> out whether anyone broke the law

Sorry, but it’s up to Congress to ask: search “false information to Congress”

March 10th, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Toto, if you have some idea who to trust, blog science isn’t always all bad. If you’re new to the subject, well, read the comments thread there and look at the confusion. How’s a new reader to sort out who’s making sense? Citations.